How does an atheist know right from wrong?

[Zyke]

If christians use God's laws as a moral compass, what do atheists use to guide their moral belief? How do they know what is right and wrong? Why do they follow any laws at all?

I am just seeking some knowledge to help me understand.

[maestro]

But the Jihadist held as an relative ethical belief that he will no be enjoying the pleasure of 72 virgins. How do you know he is wrong?

Ethics (philosophies) are relative,......(Jehovah's) Morals (Revelations) ARE Absolute!

:-)

St John 14:6

Romans chapter 10

Titus 1:2

[InterceptPoint]

How do you know?

[LeGrande]

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”

Adolf Hitler

In the name of God

PS where did you get that quote?

[maestro]

Romans 10:17

Hebrews 6:18

[muir_redwoods]

It's called Natural Law. It's the basis for libertarianism. Basically it's not much different from the Golden Rule.

[InterceptPoint]

That's just not good enough for me nor the majority of people who now live or have ever lived on this earth.

[LeGrande]

No, why would you assume that I believe them to be anything other than what I described them as not being? Commandments from god? What a flatly stupid suggestion.

Then what do you believe they are? Saying what they aren't doesn't explain what they are. Or don't you understand simple logic?

[dangus]

>> So "God" helped create a nation where everyone was free to do what their heart dictated? So who or what is this "God" that created this country? Allah? Zeus? Jehovah? You have tried to sidestep my question. <<

OK, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The one some presume to call Jehovah. I wasn't sidestepping the question, I was sticking to what was incontrovertibly acknowldged by all parties. Some say some like Jefferson were Deist, some preposterous liars say Unitarian. The point is he was clearly theist when his point of view was relevant to this discussion.

>> So "God" helped create a nation where everyone was free to do what their heart dictated? <<

Uh, no. God commanded them theat they'd better do his will to the best they could discern it. Freedom to discern the will of God is wholly contradictory to lisence to do whatever you please. They were free to do what their INFORMED REASON dictated. As St. Paul commanded Christians, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling!"

>> I think we can agree that the founding of this country was not religiously based.<<

Abolsutely not! We can agree that it was not theocratic. That is worlds away from being divorced from religion.

>>In fact they went to great lengths to separate the state and any religion. <<

A bald-faced lie, created by the communist left, and wholly alien to the US prior to the reign of Josef Stalin. Even the likes of Mencken and Clemens would have looked at you like you had three heads if you said something so preposterous in their time.

Read George Masons' Virginia Declaration of Rights. He explains in considerable depth the purpose for the clause which has been outrageously labelled a seperation of church and state. Here is what Mason wrote:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

In turn, his writings were influenced by Natural Law theorists:
"There is little or nothing in the Declaration in concept or language that had not been previously written by Spanish and Italian Jesuits of the seventeenth century, " -- Raymond Polin

[LeGrande]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...."

In my mind the whole purpose of this amendment was to prohibit the governmental from imposing a particular religion on the people OR restricting people from worshiping or not as they saw fit.

What this accomplished was to break the bond of edicts from the king carrying the weight of commandments from God. This is what is meant by the phrase "Separation of Church and State" and that is clearly what was intended.

I will agree that they weren't attempting to eliminate god and religion from the government. They were simply trying to continue the divide and conquer strategy that they had imposed on the government itself (President, Congress, Judiciary). The result though was that America became the first country to take God out of the government.

OK, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The one some presume to call Jehovah.

Would that be the same God Allah or Elohim? Do non Muslims and Jews have a place in this country?

[LeGrande]

Even the 'heathen' Sun Tzu wasn't so deluded as to maintain that "Love and hate are emotions based on fear and greed.".

No, why would you assume that I believe them to be anything other than what I described them as not being?

Love and hate are abstracts that border on the ineffable. To define them in any one, particular way is to lose their meaning, and is an exercise in futility.

Then on what basis do you deride my definition of "Love and Hate" since you are certainly incapable of defining them or even making the attempt? I suspect that my original surmise that you think they are commandments from GOD is too close to the mark. The truth hurts doesn't it : )

[stuartcr]

I don't plan on making any arguement.

[dangus]

>>In my mind the whole purpose of this amendment was to prohibit the governmental from imposing a particular religion on the people OR restricting people from worshiping or not as they saw fit.<<

This is true, and consistent with George Mason. But the modern liberals have gone from freedom of religion, to vainquishing religion from government."

>>What this accomplished was to break the bond of edicts from the king carrying the weight of commandments from God.<<

This much is certainly true, and takes nothing away from what George Mason wrote.

>> This is what is meant by the phrase "Separation of Church and State" and that is clearly what was intended. <<

On thinner ice. <<

>> I will agree that they weren't attempting to eliminate god and religion from the government. They were simply trying to continue the divide and conquer strategy that they had imposed on the government itself (President, Congress, Judiciary). The result though was that America became the first country to take God out of the government.
<<

That certainly was not an intended result! George Washington's second inaugural address made plain that he considered removing religion from government would mean the failure of the republic, warning against the godlessness overtaking the French.

[dangus]

Umm, actually, it's sort of in between.

"Slay" would be a good translation of ratsach, but it is never used in the sense that a soldier slays a combattant; its usage waas restricted to the non-combat killing of another human being. "Harag" is an unrelated word which is used for combat-related killing. The words are non-interchangeable.

[zahal724]

You are wrong. I am talking about the translation from Hebrew, not some KJV or other Christian text. http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

[coconutt2000]

Lord of the Flies.

Haha... yeah.

[zahal724]

Ayn describes Eddie as someone of lesser ability than Dagney but held the same belief that no one can own you. Also, she was also making her point through exceptions: Hank Reardan always kept his promises, yet he commits adultery. Well, she then showed that Rearden was furious with himself for breaking his promise to his wife.
Also, you might have noticed (maybe you missed it) but her main point is that men derive their power from their mind. She showed that most intellectuals were evil, but she still had that one that was good(I forgot the name) who was Galt's teacher. Also, men who invent were other great men to be respected. Again, Galt and his teacher were willing to work crappy jobs, as long as they could use their mind.
Einstein and Newton are not useless in her mind.

[Dataman]

Thanks for the ping. Sorry I've been awol this week. We've had a major software malfunction and have been doing a great deal of learning about undocumented liberties certain programs take with the system (something like what goes on in the legislature).

[LadyDoc]

there is something called natural law...all men have a conscience, and if you listen to it, you know right from wrong. Also, many atheists follow ethical systems. For example, in traditional China, there is no monotheism and gods are often similar to lucky or unlucky spirits. But they follow Confucius. Atheists in Rome often followed other philosophical systems.